Great White

I can appreciate the practice and the skill involved in those types of things, but I've never really understood the "why". Sure, I pulled my share of wheelies and endos on dirt bikes when I was a pup but I just don't get this street bike stunt riding thing. Seems kinda............ummm............"look at me". Never was a fan of that kind of mindset. Same as the "selfie" craze that seems to have gripped everyone. Now, the punks that do this stuff on public streets (especially with traffic around).....they should be strung up by their short and curlies. It's human nature to make generalizations based on your observations and a couple punks being stupid or some lawyer/dentist/Bike gang faker riding around with open pipes gives us all a bad name.

I also wear full gear. Mesh Joe Rocket jacket with extra armor in the shoulders, back, elbows etc. Gloves are leather gauntlets, but uninsulated other than double layers in contact points. Still full face helmet, but lots of flow through vents that can be opened or closed. Tried an open face one day when it was super hot. Felt a little cooler, but I felt terribly exposed (if it lays down on me) and didn't like the feeling. I'm typically OK riding covered until it hits around 30-35c, then I start thinking about air conditioning and the truck....

they're just good old CV carbs. Standard pull 'em apart, dip and rebuild procedures apply....

http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r618/justonepict/815_zps1i0pypqy.jpg That's it right there. Here's a closer look: http://www.datazap.net/sites/TampaSale/Add-on%20Parts/Motors%208.20.13/P1600563.JPG I'm updating mine to a later model version that does not use the formed tabs. The newer sector is a machined partsmthat holds the pins in machined bores: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/3BwAAOSwBahVYJS-/$_57.JPG That last pic is actually the transmission I bought for my 83. I'm dropping in a complete 2002 royl star venture transmssion and vmax final drive this winter. That's the great thing about Yamaha. They never seem to throw anything away. Even though the venture engine "supposedly" stopped production in 93, it soldered on in the vmax and royal star line past 2010. Yamaha is a "parts bin" builder. They keep recycling thier already designed components in new models with a few tweaks. Just look at how long and how many times the XS series engines have been "recycled" and you'll see what I mean. Yammy never throws anything away (that r&d has already been paid for that is). What this means for us is updated and improved OEM parts that can be swapped into our old warhorses to fix original faults/ weaknesses in the design.

Hmmm, if my boss walked in and I had a shooter game up I'd have to do some awful fast talking.....

Typically, when a yammy won't shift into a gear its the shift drum sector. Crappy littel bent sheet metal design holding the pins in. good news is ti can be fixed by beding the sheet metal "tabs" back in place. Until they bend out again that is....

Once my Dunlops wear out, I'm putting on a set of Metzlers. But only because I have a nearly unused set in the loft. If I didn't have a nearly new set of Metzlers already, I'd probably be going for the Michelins. I gotta say; whatever I put Michelins on I'm impressed by them. So far I've only had them on cars and trucks, can't wait to see what they can do with bike tires. I won't even touch the topic of car tires on motorcycle rims. My dog is not in that fight....

I don't know about "godly" but I just pressed mine back together with hand pressure whe I discovered they had seperated. The slides are plastic, the rings are plastic and the diaphragm "spacer" is metal. At least that's how it is on my 83's carbs. Been that way for a couple weeks now, running fine, no issues. I suppose a thin film of silicone wouldn't hurt, I just don't see the need as they work fine as delivered if everything is "as per". You can just pull them out of the bore by hand if you want. Nothing besides the diaphragm holds them in. once they're out, getting them back together is a simple matter of hand pressure to re-seat the rings. If you do remove them, carefully wipe the slide and the bore with a lint free cloth. They need to be ultra clean before reassembly. The clearances are small and any dirt can jam the slide. Forcing them back in will score the slide and potentially cause running issues. I have been known to give the bores and slides a little squirt of clean fuel before assembly of CV carbs. Not so much to lubricate, but to flush any contaminants away. It's not required, just a practice I got myself into somewhere along the way....

My .02? for ref, I'm 50 YO. Love cars and bikes. You said "bus". If you mean a class A I would take that and the trailer. Especially if it's a month or better. The bus does the droning from base camp to base camp, the bike does the enjoyable running around at the destinations. Heck, you can park the bus and do a one or two day jaunt in the area if you still want to "tent it" some. A good day of running around is great when followed by most of the conveniences of home vice a tent. Not to mention: if the weather doesn't cooperate you're not stuck in a tent in a downpour for a week. Listen to the rain on the roof, sleep in a warm dry bed every night and make some popcorn in the micro when you want. Roll the bike out of the trailer when the rain stops and off you go, happy and dry. It's a personal decision/preference on how much you want to "rough it", but that's where my mind/reasoning is. But I also fly SAR. I'm all busted up after 25 years of it. I can't ride all day. My back, neck, knees and wrists won't take it. Most I can get is an hour of so at a time. for those reasons as well as what I've already listed above, a nice cushy bus hauling bikes sounds just fine to me.....

You seem to be taking about 2 different things. Do you need to increase the load capacity or do you need to raise the static height of the bike? Capacity is done with a higher rate spring or more preload (less sag when loaded). Something we all need as our bikes get older and our butts get bigger! Raising static height is done with longer linkage, a physically longer shock or a shock with adjustable length like so: http://www.racelab.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/a/d/adj_l_5.jpg Either solution is going to be a bit of a challenge as our bikes never had much aftermarket support suspension wise. Add to that these rigs are just plain OLD in the eyes of the aftermarket. I've always had good dealings with racetech for custom spring rates and sizes, but that's always been for "sporty type" bikes. No idea what they might be able to do for something like an old Venture. Probably wouldn't be cheap either way.....

Until you KNOW the carb jets and passages are clean, there's no sense in trying to synchronize the carbs. With a bike that has been sitting for years, you need to pull the carbs and do a proper rehab on them. That's a dip or ultrasonic. Sometimes the brass jets/components "green fuzz" up and you need to do a little gentle mechanical cleaning on them as well as a dip/sonic. Good luck.

1983 = 140/90 16 = 20.96 overall dia 2002 = 150/90 15 = 20.31 overall dia. Difference? Yup. Significant? Not really. Definitely not for purposes of "butt dyno" comparisons (those are tire sizes I pulled off the net by googling the year, all bets are off if the tires are not stock sizes)

This is kind of too late for your situ and more what I do with 4+ wheeled vehicles, but I always crack the bleeders when I push calipers back in. Modern vehicles with multiple circuits and components (like abs manifolds and such) very often don't respond well to contaminated brake fluid being pushed back up through the system. I learned this after dealing with a couple weird brake faults, after a simple pad replacement, that resulted in replacing a few expensive components at my cost. I usually just return the cores, but I have had master cylinders that mysteriously developed split/bypassing cups after a brake job where I've pushed the pistons back. Not one problem since I started cracking the bleeders. Personally, I'd try a flush of your brake fluid. Run a bottle through it and see what you get. Worse thing that can happen is you're out 5-10 bucks for a bottle and 30 minutes of your time. I'm assuming you have already run the pistons/pads back out to the disc surface by pumping them up....

I get your reasoning but it's not a factor here. The rear wheel will not be changing (stock 1983) so the effect on the bike (ie: rpm, acceleration, etc) will be all in the drivetrain. Wheel size will be a factor for consideration when I machine the center out of the 86 wheel I have for a 17" radial conversion though...

I manned up and told the missus. She said no worries, she understands. Keep your distance men, she a keeper and she's mine!

I manned up and told the missus. She said no worries, she understands. Keep your distance men, she a keeper and she's mine!

Engines like to run at (or around) thier torque peak. This is where they make the most efficiency for the speed traveled. Overdrives that dip the rpm too far below the torque peak cost you efficiency which can cost you mpg. There's more to MPG than just getting the revs down...

screw it. I'm all in. Bought an 86 VMax final drive off ebay for 70 bucks plus shipping and it included the drive shaft. Its a little cosmetically distressed, but i may just take it apart and swap over the bevel gears. Wife is not going not be happy with me.....I'm definitely done buying parts now. I may be afraid to go to sleep after she sees I put it on the visa card......

screw it. I'm all in. Bought an 86 VMax final drive off ebay for 70 bucks plus shipping and it included the drive shaft. Wife is not going not be happy with me.....I'm definitely done buying parts now. I may be afraid to go to sleep after she sees I put it on the visa card......

Here's some info I have gathered if you'd like to look it over: 83-98 (Ventureriders.org) [TABLE=class: MsoNormalTable, width: 501] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Transmission [/TD] [TD=width: 372] Constant mesh 5 speed[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Primary reduction system [/TD] [TD=width: 372] Spur gear[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Primary reduction ratio [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 87/49 (1.775)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Secondary reduction system [/TD] [TD=width: 372] Shaft drive[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Secondary reduction ratio [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 21/27 x 33/10 (2.566)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] Operation [/TD] [TD=width: 372] Left foot shift[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 664, colspan: 2] Gear ratio:[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] 1st gear [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 39/15 (2.600) - 11.88[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] 2nd gear [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 39/22 (1.772) - 8.09[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] 3rd gear [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 31/23 (1.347) - 6.17[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] 4th gear [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 31/29 (1.068) - 4.89[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 290] 5th gear [/TD] [TD=width: 372] 29/32 (0.906) - 4.16[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] 99 (1999 service manual) [TABLE=class: MsoTableGrid, width: 504] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Transmission: [/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Constant mesh 5 speed[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Primary reduction system [/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Spur gear[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Primary reduction ratio[/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] 87/49 (1,776)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Secondary reduction system[/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Shaft drive[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Secondary reduction radio [/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] 21/27 _ 33/10 (2.567)[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Transmission type[/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Constant mesh 5-speed[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] Operation[/TD] [TD=width: 354, colspan: 3] Left foot operation[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 445, colspan: 2] Gear ratio [/TD] [TD=width: 96] OEM Final[/TD] [TD=width: 132] VMax final[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] 1st[/TD] [TD=width: 126] 43/17 (2.529) [/TD] [TD=width: 96] 11.530 [/TD] [TD=width: 132] 12.805[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] 2nd[/TD] [TD=width: 126] 31/19 (1.632) [/TD] [TD=width: 96] 7.440 [/TD] [TD=width: 132] 8.263[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] 3rd[/TD] [TD=width: 126] 30/25 (1.200)[/TD] [TD=width: 96] 5.471 [/TD] [TD=width: 132] 6.076[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] 4th[/TD] [TD=width: 126] 24/25 (0.960)[/TD] [TD=width: 96] 4.377 [/TD] [TD=width: 132] 4.861[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=width: 319] 5th[/TD] [TD=width: 126] 22/28 (0.786)[/TD] [TD=width: 96] 3.583 [/TD] [TD=width: 132] 3.980[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Seems that without redesigning hte box, they wanted to drop highway rpm. It looks like they essentially made it a 4 speed and used 5th as a 25% overdrive. This is why I was wondering how a RSV ran compared to a Gen1. Would you say your RSV is comparable to a gen1 as a 4 speed (ie: not using 5th around town) or would it still be, what could be considered, "lazier"?

Thanks for that mini review. Interesting that you run the RSV in 4th, which is virtually the same as the Gen1 ratio 5th.....0.906 vs 0.960

So here's the story: I've got a 1983 Venture. Ive bought a 2002 RSV transmission (complete). I was looking to buy a used (new design) shift sector to replace my "bent tab" style sector and ran across a complete 2002 transmission for what it would have cost to just buy a new sector, so I scooped it all up. From what I've read, the RSV and teh 1st gen MKI look pretty close for weight and HP (both around 800-ish lbs and around the 98 HP mark). The MKI is perhaps a little bit lighter and a little bit more HP.The final and middle drives are the same ratios. I'm considering dropping the entire 2002 RSV transmission in to my 83 MKI cases. I have to open it up either way to do the split/thrust washer fix. The RSV has a bit taller gearing and I'm wondering if anyone who has ridden both a GenI and an RSV (the 98HP version) can give me their impressions of the differences between the two in normal riding? I mainly use my 83 for bopping around town and going back and forth to work. I don't want to drop in too high a ratio gearset and ruin its good around town manners. I figure if the 800 lb 98 HP RSV can pull it's self around in decent fashion, my 83 engine with slightly more HP and slightly less weight so do just fine. I just don't know how a RSV behaves around town. I don't have the money to buy a VMax final drive right now either (to pull the overall ratio back down a bit), so that's not an option. At least until next winter or so...so that means two riding seasons with the RSV transmission and MKI final drive if I decide to swap in the RSV transmission.

I guess the question now is: 1. Do I put the 2nd gen transmission in the 83 and run it with the stock XZV12 rear end or, 2. Do I just put the new thrust washers in the 83 box, use the new shift sector and just shelve the rest of the 2nd gen transmission? It's not a highway bike, I only squirt around locally and back and forth to work. Once or twice a year I might ride more than an hour away, tops. Buying a vmax rear is definitely out of the question, unless I find one for like 25 bucks to my door (we all know that's not going to happen). I'm already waaaaay over budget on the parts list and the missus isn't going to be happy with me as it is....

Well, now I've done it. Wife is gonna kill me. I was looking to instal the upgraded shift drum sector (machined instead of bend over tabs) but it was too expensive from the dealer. Pushing 150 after all the pieces and taxes. So I had just ordered the gaskets and split/thrust washer. Since I'm off work right now with a concussion, I was wasting time cruising ebay to see if I could turn up a cheap used one from a newer vmax or RSV. I came across a complete 2002 RSV transmission with shift drum (updated sector) and shift forks: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTYwWDEyODA=/z/5OQAAOSwpdpVYJS2/$_57.JPG 99 bucks plus 25 bucks shipping. Anyone want to guess what happened next? At least I have a good reason why she can't hit me in the head......

decent idea. Been done before on other models. Worthwhile if you can't get enough compression damping out of the stock assembly. Basically, you'll be making some adjustable compression damping in addition to the compression damping already built in by the orifices in a damper rod fork assembly.